Evolution

[Shore Dude]

I like science. In particular, I like discussing the topic of Evolution. I wanted to start a thread to hear peoples' thoughts, experiences, ideas, etc.

The following occurrence happened to me about three or four months ago:

Last night I had an orange. I bit through one of the orange slices, but the manner in which I bit, was unlike my usual choice. For the first time, I used my incisor teeth on the bottom row of my mouth. I was able to bite completely through the orange slice, without piercing any of the bulbs, which hold the actual juice. At 26 years of age, I still was able to improve a process as simple as eating an orange. The experience was both pleasurable and insightful.

I was then reminded of the Discovery Channel. I once watched this show on sea otters, and I remembered the program showing these animals swimming down to the ocean bottom, retrieving shellfish and returning to the surface. While floating on their backs (with the fish on their stomachs), they used rocks to smash the shells of the fish. It was a process that was developed over time, because it allowed the sea otter to eat with greater ease.

Whether it is efficiency or pleasure, there is an animal instinct in each of us, which is constantly pushing our minds in the direction of something better. Evolution is defined as a "process of changing by degrees" (Webster's, 114). Extent, intensity, scope - are all nouns which shape the meaning of "evolution". Ergo, the process of growing, learning and changing is determined by the constant activity of our minds. It is the "Id" of the Freudian world. Evolution is associated with a line that is juxtaposed along this variable, thus making our lives an endless continuum of change.

[papayahed]

hmmm..... I can't think of a concrete experience but I know I have had one. I call them "moments of inspiration". When I'm in the middle of a task and the light bulb comes on and I realize there is a way better way of completeing the task. Something like that?

[mono]

Being both a sucker for science (especially biology and chemistry) and philosophy, I highly support the idea of species evolution.
Though I do not intend to offend any non-believers in evolution, biology has proven several ways in the manner that DNA changes and manipulates itself by surroundings and experiences.
Philosophically, I already believe that all life seems in a state of flux - not exactly quickly and miraculously, but through slow change gained from experience.

[papayahed]

ohhh, I just thought of something also. I was talking with an "Alien Cult" one day and this guy mentioned the law that said all things are always trying to get to it's simplest form (I can't remember which law). How is it through evolution more and more complex beings came into existence?

[mono]

The law that said all things are always trying to get to it's simplest form (I can't remember which law). How is it through evolution more and more complex beings came into existence?

Hmm, Occam's Razor, perhaps? That seems the closest concept I can think of, which states that for every problem, its solution lies the simplest answer, toward simplicity. I feel, however, that simplicity (or the simplest form) would allow that living being and their surroundings thrive in harmony, without problems; one, either living being or their surroundings, would require evolution of some kind, which, I believe, humans do both.
Was it Occam's Razor you referred to, papayahed, just to make sure?

[Basil]

I think he was probably referring to the second law of thermodynamics (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm), i.e. the entropy law. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution contradicts this law.

[papayahed]

I think he was probably referring to the second law of thermodynamics (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm), i.e. the entropy law. Creationists often claim that the theory of evolution contradicts this law.


Thanks, that's the one Basil, except I'm a "she".

[Basil]

I know ;)

I was referring to the "guy" you mentioned in your post . . .

[papayahed]

I know ;)

I was referring to the "guy" you mentioned in your post . . .

oops, my bad.

[giosue_c]

but back to the original post... you are talking about learned behavior. Is evolution the correct word for that? Your story about the otters cracking the shells doesn't seem evolutionary unless you are talking about shellfish with stronger shells surviving. And by the way, how exactly does an otter use a rock to smash a shelfish? That is pretty cool.

[papayahed]

but back to the original post... you are talking about learned behavior. Is evolution the correct word for that? Your story about the otters cracking the shells doesn't seem evolutionary unless you are talking about shellfish with stronger shells surviving. And by the way, how exactly does an otter use a rock to smash a shelfish? That is pretty cool.


The otters cracking shells with rocks could be evolutionary, the ones that learned to crack survived and the others that didn't perhaps starved for lack of food?

[Shore Dude]

When I was brainstorming thoughts on Evolution, I do not believe I had any specific purpose. I seem to learn more about a topic through enlightening discussion. So I was just hoping to hear peoples' insights on a topic I enjoy thinking about.

With that said, I kind of feel as though Evolution is a constant variable of change acting around our daily lives. I remember hearing a science teacher discuss Evolution, and he had said that many times, the reason why people have a difficult time grasping the concept of Evolution, is because it is such a slow and arduous process. Some times, an Evolutionary change could take place over thousands of years.

But that experience I had, eating that orange. If you look at it as a piece of a larger puzzle, could that be Evolution at work? The event expanded my mind. It allowed me to engage in a task (i.e. eating) with greater ease. Could that be attributed to Evolution? The advancement of knowledge? Is the definition of Evolution subjective?

I also had a debate at one point with someone, because I called Evolution a force of nature. He had debated it was not an actual force, but I think he was taking my meaning too literally. But can Evolution be considered a force that is constantly affecting our daily lives, even in the most miniscule of ways?



And by the way, how exactly does an otter use a rock to smash a shelfish? That is pretty cool.
I think sea otters are cool animals. And if you have never seen a show on them, you should try and find one. They are actually pretty smart creatures. But how they eat shell fish, is they go to the bottom of a river, grab a shell fish and a rock. Then, while they float on their backs, with the shell fish on their stomach, they use a rock to crack the shell. I am not familiar with too many animals that use tools in such a way. It's pretty cool.

[giosue_c]

I think I need to see this program you mentioned. I am having a hard time visualizing this. When you say the otter lies on his back I think of him sort of lounging in some shallows with a piile of shellfish next to him. Then he takes his little rock tool and smashes some little shelled critter next to him, and pops that into his mouth.

All you have to do is put a remote control in his hand, and the otter will have reached the evolutionary level of the couch potato ;)

[giosue_c]

The otters cracking shells with rocks could be evolutionary, the ones that learned to crack survived and the others that didn't perhaps starved for lack of food?

Good point papayahed. But it isn't the learned behavior that is essential to the survivors, rather the capacity for learning. I think there is an important distinction to be made there. Of course, we might all be in agreement here, depending on how you read the arguments.

[Jester]

my mom is a biology teacher and my dad's favorite hobby is rocks, fossils and stuff like that (thats part of one of hte many evidences for evolution) so im partial to believe in evalution but for me the most obvious thing that i can make is that soemtimes i see no difference between little children and specific animals... its quite scarry, scarrier still that soem adults are no more human than animal

[Shore Dude]

Come to think of it, my dad is one hairy dude.

[Scheherazade]

TMI shared??? :D

[papayahed]

So can "survival of the fittest" and "evolution" be considered the same thing? They both weed out the least adaptable.

[Scheherazade]

Evolution requires the survival of the fittest?

[Shore Dude]

TMI shared??? :D
There's never TMI shared. Not here. Not now.



So can "survival of the fittest" and "evolution" be considered the same thing? They both weed out the least adaptable.
I am not an expert in this subject area (actually, I am probably not an expert in any subject area), but I believe the theory: Survival of the Fittest fits under the Evolution umbrella. They were both derived by Darwin, if I am not mistaken. Is that the correct usage? Derived?


It seemed as though no one addressed my questions. So if anyone is looking to continue with science class, please attempt the following...

1.) Is the definition of Evolution subjective?

2.) What is Evolution? Do you see it at work in our daily lives? Do you have examples of what you believe is Evolution? Do you believe in Evolution?

3.) If Evolution exists. If you believe in Evolution. How would you categorize it within the science world? Is it a force of nature? Is it an aspect of nature? Etc.

[Taliesin]

I believe that the sea-otters smashing those shellfish could hardly be considered an evolutionary thing. I mean, it's not genetical (unless there was some really big freak "accident" at the early levels of the otter's development so it had become an instinct) You cannot inherit knowledge nor info genetically, unless it's an instinct as I remember.
And evolution is a genetical thing in my opinion.

And I hardly believe that the orange thingy could be considered evolution. You don't inherit it, do you?

[Shore Dude]

And evolution is a genetical thing in my opinion.

And I hardly believe that the orange thingy could be considered evolution. You don't inherit it, do you?
But Taliesin, one key aspect of Evolution is data surrounding Homo Habilis. After Homo Erectus (who was the first man to walk upright), Homo Habilis was the first person to use tools. The use of tools, and the knowledge of that discovery, we teach as Evolutionary progress.

So now, what the discussion comes down to is what is Evolution? Is the definition subjective? Because if it is, I would like to define Evolution as a constant force that drives a species to better living. Eating that orange was better living for me. It was easier, juice didn't splatter all over my face and I enjoyed my orange much more than I had ever in the past. How can you argue that that occurrence is not evolutionary progress.

If Homo Habilis was evolutionary progress, then the sea otters have to be characterized as evolutionary progress. If that is the case, I would argue to say that evolution is a constant force around our lives every, single day.

[Jay]

*blames Scher*
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution

[Shore Dude]

Jay, can you cut and paste the definition? For some reason, dictionary.com and Merriam Webster's are only giving me advertisements. They are no longer providing me definitions.

[papayahed]

This is from Wikepedia:

This article is about biological evolution. For other possible meanings, see Evolution (disambiguation).
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.

The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.

As the theory of evolution has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism.

I typed in Evolution and got a whole page of possible definitions.

[Jay]

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

2.
a) The process of developing.
b) Gradual development.

3. Biology
a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

[mono]

Is the definition of Evolution subjective?


I find the perception of evolution being subjective - what human consciousness decides what species seems the strongest/fittest/longest living? We cannot perceive it wholly, in my opinion, due to being a part of evolution; we still have long to go.

[Taliesin]

But Taliesin, one key aspect of Evolution is data surrounding Homo Habilus. After Homo Erectus (who was the first man to walk upright), Homo Habilus was the first person to use tools. The use of tools, and the knowledge of that discovery, we teach as Evolutionary progress.


I am not very sure about this. But I think that the reason is that the Homo Erectus/Habilis had a great brain mass and was capable of passing on knowledge i.e teaching. A great brain mass is the product of evolution, but the tools itself aren't evolution. I would take the tools a "side-effect"



So now, what the discussion comes down to is what is Evolution? Is the definition subjective? Because if it is, I would like to define Evolution as a constant force that drives a species to better living.
Eating that orange was better living for me. It was easier, juice didn't splatter all over my face and I enjoyed my orange much more than I had ever in the past. How can you argue that that occurrence is not evolutionary progress.

You are a species? Does your orange-biting change the human race?

Anyway, I would define evolution (Why Do You Say "evolution" With Big E?) differently.
But will this be a linguistical argument? How do you define.....?



If Homo Habilus was evolutionary progress, then the sea otters have to be characterized as evolutionary progress. If that is the case, I would argue to say that evolution is a constant force around our lives every, single day

The usage of tools is a side-effect in my opinion. The evolution caused the brain mass to increase and so the otter was capable of learning/teaching the trick. Because I cannot imagine (unless it is an instinct which I doubt) how can this trick be something you inherit from your parents genetically?

BTW, did We use a singular form when speaking of Us?? :goof:

[Shore Dude]

From a Michigan State website:
The genus Homo followed the Australopithecus, where a great amount of brain expansion was observed(1). The believed tool making capabilities of this particular species is the reasoning behind its species name of "habilis," which means "handy man."



You are a species? Does your orange-biting change the human race?
Well, I am part of the human species. If you think of Evolution as a part of natural science, it takes thousands upon thousands of years for an evolutionary change to be significantly noticed. Now if you think about that continuum, take that orange-biting experience. I plan to pass that on to my children one day. When I have a four year old little girl, and I am eating with her, her first orange, I plan to teach her to use her bottom incisor teeth to eat. It's easier. It's more enjoyable.

So go back now to this evolutionary continuum. Could an essay be written which talks about point in time occurrences that could feed to the evolutionary change of a species? Do these occurrences happen all the time, but simply go un-noticed?



Anyway, I would define evolution (Why Do You Say "evolution" With Big E?) differently.
But will this be a linguistical argument? How do you define.....?
Just a stylistic preference. I think a linguistical debate is possible with the Evolution subject.



The usage of tools is a side-effect in my opinion. The evolution caused the brain mass to increase and so the otter was capable of learning/teaching the trick. Because I cannot imagine (unless it is an instinct which I doubt) how can this trick be something you inherit from your parents genetically?
Since it was the reason for the name of the species, I would venture to say it is a much more important characterstic. And the change or knowledge acquired (use of tools) may not be a genetic change per say, but the acquisition of knowledge has furthered the species along. This development, builds an organism much more fit to survive (Darwin), which in turn allows stronger, more intelligent beings (that's the genetic part) to survive, where the less intelligent ones do not.

[baddad]

I find the perception of evolution being subjective - what human consciousness decides what species seems the strongest/fittest/longest living? We cannot perceive it wholly, in my opinion, due to being a part of evolution; we still have long to go.


Yes, the 'perception' of evolution would indeed require an observer of the phenonenon. But just because no one was around for the first 3.5 billion years to observe life evolving doesn't mean it did not happen.

And as for the decision as to what species are the strongest/fittest/ longest living (not too sure that latter term applies here) is concerned, all one must do is look at currently surviving forms of life on the earth. These are the species that have evolved over time as adaptive, or non-adaptive behaviors, dictated survival rates.

Environment changes constantly. Those species (whether bacteria or mammal, etc.) or particular lifeforms able to adapt to new requirements survive. Those that don't, perish. Ridiculously simple really.

And as far as evolution simplifying things is concerned, the more adapted or adaptive a species is, regardless of how complicated the specie's rituals for living, the more simple its existence. Simplicity in evolution does not mean an amoeba's presentation, but how adapted a species is to its environment.

[GreenDog]

Speaking as a biologist to be (by the end of the next semester) I can provide a professional (almost) point of view.
The simplest way to define evolution is as: heritage with change (meaning is that the offspring is slightly different from the parents), if the change persists in time (is present in the next generation) evolution has occurred!
Evolution is a mindless process, the changes (mutations) happen by chance, but remain on purpose.
The evolution does not always lead to the survival of the fittest, sometimes it actually does the opposite thing.

[Shore Dude]

Evolution is a mindless process.
This is the part where I have trouble believing. Or rather, a part I still question. The use of tools. We have been told that is an evolutionary effect. In hindsight. We've studied it with Homo Habilis. We can see it with present species like sea otters. This is a learned trait. At some point, one solitary sea otter, or one single Homo had to have picked up a tool and used it for the first time. Those intial events, that put in to place, an on-going evolutionary change (because the effects of evolution are not seen until thousands of years, per say) -- that is what I find interesting.

Who is to say, those events do not happen around us every day? Does anyone have any examples or experiences with studying evolutionary change?

[Scheherazade]

If using a tool causes a permanent physical change which is hereditary, such as opposable thumb, then it would count as an evolution... I think, very humbly.

[atiguhya padma]

Originally Posted by GreenDog
Evolution is a mindless process.

But itisn't purposeless. Read Richard Dawkins on this, he makes it very clear that there is a definite direction in evolution.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by GreenDog
Evolution is a mindless process.

But itisn't purposeless. Read Richard Dawkins on this, he makes it very clear that there is a definite direction in evolution.

Has GreenDog said that evolution is purposeless?


Evolution is a mindless process, the changes (mutations) happen by chance, but remain on purpose.

And about that "go read Some Author" thingy - isn't it logical that evolution has a direction? Why must I read somebody of whom I have never heard of to understand a concept that is practically a thing that any fool could understand?

It's very logical in our opinion. There have a certain enviroment and species that do are not very well inured to the enviroment. In the next generation, because of mutation, there is quite a range of creatures with slightly different abilities. Some of those abilities are negative in that enviroment (but it is extremely relative, in another enviroment they could be very good) some are neutral and a few are good. The "negatives" have a bigger chance of dying and therefore having no successors than the "positives". So there is a slight adaptation towards that niche. And in manymany generations the specie has changed so much that the adaptation is noticable.

We hope that our bad english didn't get on the way of our point.

[atiguhya padma]

I am surprised you have never heard of Richard Dawkins Taliesin. Any fool has heard of Richard Dawkins. Have you heard of Charles Darwin by any chance? Or do you not need to read an author that writes on what any fool could understand?

[Taliesin]

Hmmmm...... Darwin? Is he a basketball player by any chance? :banana:

Dawkins? The only thing I have heard of him is the thing that if you find a broken watch, it proves the existence of a blind watchmaker or something.

Ah, We are very sorry for expressing ourself so. We just extremely dislike when someone says: Go read this book/author, this will explain everything." without saying anything about it, with no short "synopsis", especially if the fact one wants to prove is as logical as one of the basics of evolution, and therefore our agressive answer. (How would you feel is someone said: two times two equals four, go read your basic school maths book on this, it makes very clear why it is so?)

Our point would be: would you care of sharing more information of Dawkins's work, like why it is so special and what great ideas has he had?

[atiguhya padma]

Yeah I'll share a little more information: go read The Selfish Gene. (The Blind Watchmaker, didn't that have something to do with William Paley?)

[Taliesin]

You really are evil, do you know it?

But your evil plan was ruined by two components:
a) Google
b)We have read the book, only we didn't remember the author of it.

Mwahahahahaa. :banana:

[Scheherazade]

I am surprised you have never heard of Richard Dawkins Taliesin. Any fool has heard of Richard Dawkins. Have you heard of Charles Darwin by any chance? Or do you not need to read an author that writes on what any fool could understand?

OK, if we haven't heard of Richard Dawkins, which category do we fall into? Sub-fool?? I will need to go and get a membership there...

Also, can I get a list of the authors that writes on what any fool could understand? :rolleyes:

[GreenDog]

I have tried to reply fot an hour, but the computer keeps getting stuck!
In this battle I have lost, I surrender.

[Scheherazade]

GreenDog>Why dont you type your message in Word and then paste here? It sometimes helps...

[den]

I give up too. This was an interesting topic ...


I have tried to reply fot an hour, but the computer keeps getting stuck!
In this battle I have lost, I surrender.

[papayahed]

OK, if we haven't heard of Richard Dawkins, which category do we fall into? Sub-fool?? I will need to go and get a membership there...


Hey Scher maybe we could get a group discount?

[Scheherazade]

Hey, that works for me...

*ponders trying not to hurt her lil' old brainy*

You think they would give shiny badges as well?? "Fool for life"??

Me likes badges...

[baddad]

Hmm....Interesting...... I never would have guessed that evolution is such a mystery to so many people. I just can't figure out why? I've been around for a few decades longer than a lot of folks on this forum, and perhaps my memory is failing, but don't schools teach the theory of evolution in the primary grades? I know some American school districts now insist on including 'Creationism' in their teachings (the religious right insists on including this approach) but surely basic science taught at the elementary level focus' on evolution?

[papayahed]

You think they would give shiny badges as well?? "Fool for life"??

Me likes badges...

And I like shiny things.

[GreenDog]

They do teach Evolution, but the misty over weights the clear in this theory, the mistakes are common, because some things are not intuitive enough.
Evolutionary biologists spend half of the time apologizing in front of everyone else for their theory being inconsistent with some religious dogmas, and the party goes on…

[Shore Dude]

and the party goes on…
A few seven & sevens later, you've got a room full of scientific revolutionaries (pun not intended) with a sprinkling of religious righteous, duking out a debate on whether or not Homo Erectus was in fact, a homosexual.

Well, not really. But the ideas surrounding Evolution I think can be expanded, built upon, molested (in a figuratively scientifc sense). That's the part I am interested in.

I was taught basic theories of Evolution in primary school. We learned about Darwinism, Evolution and (I am pretty sure) almost everyone has heard the moth in England story. The Peppered Moth.

Does anyone remember this story? There once was these white moths who used to hang out on (birch trees?) in England... They were speckled with a little black as camo when they sat on the bark. But after the Industrial Revolution, the trees turned black. Well years and years later, these moths became black with white specks. How did this happen? Well, the white colored moths were seen very easily by birds, and thus were eaten. So the few mutated moths who were darker in color, initially were not eaten. From there, those darker moths passed on their genes, and Darwin's concept of 'Natural Selection'/ 'Survival of the Fittest' ran its course.

At some point, that first white moth had to have been eaten. Setting in motion a continuum of change.

[ruhbr_ducky]

The question is,is survival of the fittest(natural selsction) proff of evolution?
Because evolution is actually a hypothesis.The ratio of black and white moths
does not explain how new life forms or how one kind of organism can change into another kind or how an organism can develop new organs( or talents,
how would your otter have eaten before he evolved enough to open the shell?)There were always light and dark peppered moths;only their ratio in the general propulation shifted. No new kind of moth ,not even a new color, developed.Further more the light and dark peppered moths can mate and produce fertile offspring. This means they are of the same kind.

[cuppajoe_9]

The question is,is survival of the fittest(natural selsction) proff of evolution?Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs.


Because evolution is actually a hypothesis.That is incorrect. Perhaps you are thinking of abiogenesis, which is a group of hypotheses.


The ratio of black and white moths
does not explain how new life forms or how one kind of organism can change into another kind or how an organism can develop new organs( or talents,
how would your otter have eaten before he evolved enough to open the shell?There were always light and dark peppered moths;only their ratio in the general propulation shifted. No new kind of moth ,not even a new color, developed.Further more the light and dark peppered moths can mate and produce fertile offspring. This means they are of the same kind.Straw man. The entire theory of evolution is not based on the peppered moth experiment. Also, I've never seen anybody suggest that light and dark peppered moths are different species, aside from you, just then.

[ruhbr_ducky]

well looks like were gonna have fun.....natural selection is the concept that species well suited to their enviroment are more likely to survive and reproduce than weak or unfit animals. This does not state that one species or animal can evolve into another.

[cuppajoe_9]

The book in which the theory of natural selection was first set down is titled On the Origin of Species and does, in fact, describe how speciation occurs through natural selection.

[ruhbr_ducky]

On the Origin of Species is a poor argument, it was not a scientific treatise, but rather a series of thousands of wild sculations strung together- in Darwin's words " one long argument." Natural selection acts to preserve existing kinds, not create new kinds. P.S. Adam Sedgwick, one of Darwin's
mentors denounced Darwin's hypothesis of evolution by natural selection as
" as a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up.... to make us independent of a Creator" end quote.Also two of the world's greatest physicists ,James Clark Maxwell and Lord Kelvin, strongly opposed Darwinism and developed mathematical and scientific refutations of evolution.

[cuppajoe_9]

" as a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up.... to make us independent of a Creator"Ad hominem, anybody? In any case, we're not talking about whether Origin of Species is correct or not (I don't need it), we're talking about the meaning of the theory of natural selection.

I'd like to see these mathematical and scientific refutations of evolution.

[ruhbr_ducky]

you will have to look those up they don't happen to be infront of me, but I'am sure if you look around you'll find em.

[ruhbr_ducky]

I just stated to you the theory of natural selection , it literally means that species well suited to their enviroment are more likely to survive and reproduce than weak or unfit animals. So what else could it mean?

[cuppajoe_9]

It also describes how the process that you refer to results in speciation.

[ruhbr_ducky]

how can the preservation of a kind lead to "speciation".
there is no change in kind. like the moths.

[ruhbr_ducky]

For example, Darwin observed that finches on the Galapagos Islands had bills that were quite different form those of European species and were much better suited to eating the seeds and fruit found on the islands. Darwin believed that random genetic changeds had produced new bill shapes; natural selection that made these dirds more likely to survive than finches with the "standard" bill. The changes actually occured however, because the finches had possessed the genes for those bill shapes from the very begining.
Inbreeding revealed these latent characteristics, and natural selection caused them to become prodominant amoung the finches on the island.
This dosen't in the least bit show that the finches evolved.

[ruhbr_ducky]

excuse my dirds (hehe)

[Logos]

Sorry, topic is over 2 years old, bumped, (after new rules were posted for the religious area) and there are already a few topics on evolution there (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6).